get_keys_info

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information' implies a read-only operation with no destructive side effects, but it does not disclose auth requirements, response shape, or behaviors around key rotation. This is minimal but not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object and parenthetically listing the key data returned. It is as compact as the tool's simplicity allows.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter info tool, the description covers the core payload: active and previous signing keys. However, it omits guidance on when to prefer get_keys_info over get_jwks, and with no annotations or output schema the agent still lacks indication of auth or output format, leaving moderate gaps for a key-related tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Under the zero-parameter baseline, the description has no obligation to explain parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource 'signing keys' with concrete content '(active kid, previous keys)'. It conveys a distinct read purpose and is distinguishable from write-oriented siblings like rotate_keys, though it does not explicitly contrast with the similar get_jwks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to call this tool versus alternatives such as get_jwks or rotate_keys. It does not mention preconditions, permissions, or conditions that would favor another tool, so the agent must infer usage from sibling names alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.